7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10038 OF 2025 Yogesh Jethalal Jain ...Petitioner/s VERSUS Mittal Yogesh Jain (gala) @ Mittal Pradeep Sangoi ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Prabha Badane i/by Mr. Prasad Thonse, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Vanshika Mahajan h/f. Preeti Gada, Advocates for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Impugned order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the Respondent-wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to the daughter and to pay school fees of daughter till final disposal of the petition. 2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, while passing the impugned order, the Learned Judge has not considered the exact income of the Petitioner and on the basis of assumption, the Learned Judge has awarded maintenance amount, which is erroneous. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent is engaged in running her family business and is also working as teacher in SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.16 18:47:08 +0530 7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc Tikam kindergarten classes, from which she is earning a substantial income sufficient to maintain herself. The Respondent-Wife is earning a good income and regularly filling her income tax returns. However, she has deliberately failed to disclose the said income in her Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also paying an annual LIC premium of Rs. 53,000/- towards securing the future of the daughter. Hence, requested to allow the Petition. 4. It is contention of learned counsel of the Respondent that the Petitioner is a businessman and proprietor of Yogesh Trading Company and earns crores of rupees. The Respondent has no independent source of income and maintaining herself and her 9 years old daughter. The Learned Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. 6. While passing the impugned order, the Learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner is a businessman. His income for the Assessment Year 2023-2024 was Rs.9,93,980/-. On the basis of the income of the Petitioner, the Learned Judge has passed the impugned order. In my view, it appears from record that the Respondent has no source of income. She is maintaining herself and her 9 years' old daughter. Hence, I do not find 7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc Tikam any infirmity in the impugned order passed by Learned Judge and I pass following order: ORDER Writ petition is dismissed. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)